Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles

Following the discussions at Talk:2023 Hawaii wildfires#Use of Hawaiian symbols in names and Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii, and in keeping with changes made at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand in the same manner, I propose the following changes to the MoS. The current call on people to use the most common name has resulted in a minsundestanding that orthographic convenience represents a genuine difference in language, which is an issue. There's also a bit of an issue of people assuming WP:COMMONNAME on place names that, likely, they've never encountered enough to be aware of the common name of, so a change in the MoS would help here. Changes in bold italics.

The Wikipedia policy for article names provides the general guidance namings. The Wikipedia naming conventions page provides more specific guidance.

In general, use the most common name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find in reliable sources, following the correct orthographic style outlined in the Hawaiʻi State Board on Geographic Names. For example, use Pearl Harbor rather than Puʻuloa, and Lānaʻi rather than Lanai. While names are often spelled without ʻokina and kahakō, this is understood as a shorthand of convenience rather than a distinct name in English.

You can create redirects for common, alternative names, particularly those spelled without Hawaiian ʻokina and kahakō. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. Wikipedia disambiguation pages are also used to help the reader find the desired article if several have similar names. For example, see Waimea.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

For clarification, the State of Hawaii would still be spelled without the ʻokina. — kwami (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

We’d probably need to make it clear here that’s the official state name so people don’t think it’s an arbitrary decision. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I pinged the linguistics wikiproject about this, they're likely familiar with these discussions on Wikipedia beyond just Hawaiʻi and NZ. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this looks good! A few assorted thoughts, in addition to the ones I've mentioned previously:

• I wonder whether it should be clearer that the bold and italicised bit is for when the name is a Hawaiian one - presumably we're not expecting people to still check the state board for names like Pearl Harbour. It could be something nice and straightforward, like "When the name originates from Hawaiian, use the correct orthographic style as outlined in the Hawaiʻi State Board on Geographic Names"
• Since this is a MOS, could it be worth a small bit to talk about how a Hawaiian name should be treated when it isn't the common name? Should the Hawaiian name be mentioned in the infobox and lead? Most infoboxes have the native_name parameter now which can be quite helpful, as well as the lang and langx templates for the lead.
• Could the bit about creating redirects be a bit stronger than a suggestion? I feel like it should be more of a "use the correct orthographic style and create a redirect from the name without ʻokina and kahakō".

My only other thought would just be reiterating the whole MOS vs Naming conventions thing. Is this page sufficient to cover both, or is it worth setting up a separate Hawaiian naming conventions page? Turnagra (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the bold and italicization may be a good idea, I remember there being an MOS bit that may conflict with that, though. I think.

presumably we're not expecting people to still check the state board for names like Pearl Harbour

We may need to figure out how to prevent editors from vibe checking WP:COMMONNAME though. The biggest issue we have is people treating names like Lanai as English and Lānaʻi as Hawaiian, so we'd need to be very clear that the differentiation should be for situations like the state of Hawaii (instead of Hawaiʻi) and Pearl Harbour, rather than most articles.

Since this is a MOS, could it be worth a small bit to talk about how a Hawaiian name should be treated when it isn't the common name?

We could do "Traditionally ______" which would sidestep the English/Hawaiian differentiator not being as much of a thing as Wikipedians have relied on in the past. There are places, for example, where both an exonym and the traditional name are in common use in English, with the exonym being more common. Sandy's and Wāwāmalu, for instance, would still favour Sandy's.

as well as the lang and langx templates for the lead.

These should probably almost never be used, and that actually may belong in the MOS. One of the biggest issues with the way articles are written right now is that these templates are being used to say "English name is X, Hawaiian name is Y" where that difference is not actually real. Maybe in cases like Pearl Harbor where there is unambiguously an English name wholly distinct from the endonym.

I agree with making the redirects stronger.

Is this page sufficient to cover both, or is it worth setting up a separate Hawaiian naming conventions page?

This page is already sorely underutilized, I think we can make it better rather than forking it. How do you feel about this?

The Wikipedia policy for article names provides the general guidance namings. The Wikipedia naming conventions page provides more specific guidance. The ʻokina is a consonant and should not be understood as a diacritic. Leaving it out of a word can substantially change its meaning.

In general, use the most common name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find in reliable sources, following the correct orthographic style outlined in the Hawaiʻi State Board on Geographic Names, correcting for nonstandard characters being used in place of an ʻokina. For example, use Pearl Harbor rather than Puʻuloa, and Lānaʻi rather than Lanai.

There are significant limitations to the use of media sources to establish the most common name, and care should be taken to establish what is in common use locally. Local media organizations often differentiate the orthography between print and online publications due to search engine optimization concerns, and mainland/international media companies often erroneously consider the correct spelling to contain diacritics which their internal guidelines dictate leaving out. While names are often spelled without ʻokina and kahakō, this is understood as a shorthand of convenience rather than [a distinct name in English → as a distinct English name].

You should create redirects for common alternative names, [particularly those spelled → as well as for orthography] without Hawaiian ʻokina and kahakō. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. Wikipedia disambiguation pages are also used to help the reader find the desired article if several have similar names. For example, see Waimea. Do not use the lang and langx templates to differentiate the orthography unless the difference in spelling is an explicit change acknowledged in official sources, such as the State of Hawaii instead of the State of Hawaiʻi or Pearl Harbour instead of Puʻuloa.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I informed the state board about the Unicode error when they copied already-correct orthography over to the fixed column, and they said they'll fix the error, starting with the Oahu doc I gave as an example. So I think we can omit that warning and leave it to the generic instruction to use a proper okina. — kwami (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's be very realistic about how quickly we can expect a Honolulu-based government agency to act. I think leaving the warning it is probably useful until they get to it in a decade or so, then we can remove it. Other than that I think those are good changes. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

We already say that the proper character should be used. With that extra warning, we're saying we should follow official sources and that we shouldn't follow them. — kwami (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, we say dropping okina does not create a different name, but in the last para characterize it as an alt name, so I suggest 'as well as' instead of 'particularly' — kwami (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah sorry, when I was talking about the langx template I was meaning for instances where the unambiguous common name was different. So it'd be something like Pearl Harbor (Hawaiian: Puʻuloa) is... or Diamond Head (Hawaiian: Lēʻahi) is... but not Lanai (Hawaiian: Lānaʻi) or Lānaʻi (English: Lanai).

I think the wording looks okay, though I wonder whether the warning about common name might risk this being seen as contradicting wider WP policy even more. It's much easier to slot this in if we're still establishing common name in the usual way, but then when that name is a Hawaiian one we're using the orthography from a particular spot. I'd probably have something like the below:

The Wikipedia policy for article names provides the general guidance namings. The Wikipedia naming conventions page provides more specific guidance. This page provides guidance for where the practice for Hawaiian articles differs from that of these universal Wikipedia conventions.s

Heading: Use of ʻokina and kahakō

Words of Hawaiian origin may include the use of either an ʻokina or a kahakō (macron). The ʻokina is a consonant and should not be understood as a diacritic. Leaving it out of a word can substantially change its meaning.

In general, use the most common name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find in reliable sources. When the common name is of Hawaiian origin, following the correct orthographic style as outlined in the Hawaiʻi State Board on Geographic Names, correcting for nonstandard characters being used in place of an ʻokina., even if common usage uses a different orthographic style. While names are often spelled without ʻokina and kahakō, this is understood as a shorthand of convenience rather than as a distinct English name. For example, use Pearl Harbor rather than Puʻuloa, and Lānaʻi rather than Lanai.

There are significant limitations to the use of media sources to establish the most common name, and care should be taken to establish what is in common use locally. Local media organizations often differentiate the orthography between print and online publications due to search engine optimization concerns, and mainland/international media companies often erroneously consider the correct spelling to contain diacritics which their internal guidelines dictate leaving out. While names are often spelled without ʻokina and kahakō, this is understood as a shorthand of convenience rather than [a distinct name in English → as a distinct English name].

You should create redirects for common alternative names, as well as for orthography without ʻokina and kahakō. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. Wikipedia disambiguation pages are also used to help the reader find the desired article if several have similar names. For example, see Waimea.

When the common name is not a Hawaiian name, use the langx template to list the Hawaiian name in the lead, and include the Hawaiian name in the infobox as appropriate. However, doDo not use the lang and langx templates to differentiate the orthography unless the difference in spelling is an explicit change acknowledged in official sources, such as the State of Hawaii instead of the State of Hawaiʻi. or Pearl Harbour instead of Puʻuloa. For example,

Pearl Harbor (Hawaiian: Puʻuloa) is... Y

Hawaii (Hawaiian: Hawaiʻi) is an island state... Y

Lanai (Hawaiian: Lānaʻi) is... N

Or something along those lines! I've used the tq templates to differentiate my changes, but with the examples at the end I'm actually suggesting they get included to make the good and bad use of langx abundantly clear. I've also moved one of the sentences from the paragraph I deleted up to be with the other stuff so it's not been fully deleted. Turnagra (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like we have basic consensus. This discussion is getting intricate enough that I think it might be best to go ahead implement your and Warren's suggestions as a rough fix, and then continue here if we think the wording needs adjustment. At this point it's what wording and examples best get the point across, rather than what the point should be. — kwami (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we probably need to mention the spelling in sources thing, if only because every single name change discussion I’ve seen on Hawaiian articles involves someone grabbing a HNN or NYTimes article. Not sure if my phrasing was great there, though. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, definitely include the spelling in sources warning. — kwami (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I was going to do this myself, so you wouldn't both be suggesting and implementing the changes, but I've gotten lost as to what goes where and how much of the current version is to be retained. Why don't you go ahead and implement your suggestions, and then Turnagra and I can copy-edit? — kwami (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I share those same concerns, especially with the inertia that we've had around these topics before. Maybe we can try to hammer out the language around sourcing first? I'd rather it not look like all me (or be all me, realistically). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good.

It would be easier for me if it were clearer which suggested wording went under which section heading, and which current text is to be removed. I try to edit sections individually. — kwami (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly enough about it if y'all want to include it, but I think the bit about using the spelling from the state board is enough to sidestep it. Those NYT sources still say that the common name is Hawaiian, so these guidelines would apply and we'd use the state board spelling. But agree that we should get something implemented and can tinker from there. Turnagra (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The manager of the Hawaiʻi Statewide GIS Program has already corrected the Oʻahu list, and uploaded it as '... Official Oct 2014-rev.pdf', though there are still quote marks in the 'Notes' section and I pointed out a cap error. [Remove the '-rev' from the URL and you can still see the original doc.] If he continues at this rate, it should be only a few weeks until he's through.

I expect that the island will be spelled 'Hawaiʻi' with an ʻokina. I don't think we should state that right now, not while the island articles are where they are, but IMO we should be careful not to contradict it either. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I expect that the island will be spelled 'Hawaiʻi' with an ʻokina. I don't think we should state that right now, not while the island articles are where they are, but IMO we should be careful not to contradict it either.

I fixed the Waikīkī article recently, nobody has reverted it yet. I think we're pretty safe to just fix the island articles. @Turnagra @Aoi @SMcCandlish since you've all been interested in this, would you like to take a look? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's difficult in that the islands have been a bit more in the spotlight and subject to move requests in the past, so would draw more attention to it from people that aren't aware of the context. I'd probably suggest getting these guidelines all sorted first and clear, then using them on some smaller instances first to test how well they work and build precedent before tackling something as big as the islands. Turnagra (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The smaller islands are all where they should be, AFAICT. I think we should start by moving the cities and geo features that remain. Once that's done, we should make a request for the big islands and anything that's blocked from moving. A technical request for the latter, then a for-discussion request for the islands, citing this MOS and the Board. — kwami (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

If it's become conventional to use the less anglicized orthography with regard to the islands and various other place names, then I don't see an issue with it. This is also happening in New Zealand and various other places (I recall it also coming up sometimes in New Mexico with regard to Spanish placenames, e.g. Santa Fé versus Santa Fe debates). But a distinct matter is naming of legal entities like the State of Hawaii, and even the legal-body names of municipal and other local governments; the name of one of these might diverge from that of the locality as a geological or human-geographical subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The municipalities (and geology, since I suppose I’m qualified to speak to that) across the board use the correct orthography. This is one reason that there’s uncontested pushback from Hawaiʻi-based editors against WP:COMMONNAME arguments, the common name is the correct orthography. There are national level names (“State of Hawaii”) where the correct orthography drops Hawaiian spelling, but those are much rarer and generally are federal facilities. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It may be a bit weird to have the State of Hawaii but the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, especially if we write the island of Hawaiʻi with an okina but the state of Hawaii without. I propose the MOS suggest using the spelling Hawaii when speaking of the state or archipelago, including the kingdom that spanned much of that archipelago, and restricting Hawaiʻi to the Big Island. Or, we could use Kingdom of Hawaiʻi for historical reasons, but if so we should spell that out here. Other exceptions might be statewide institutions that consistently use the okina, such as the University of Hawaiʻi. But I think it might be useful to have a consistent orthographic distinction between the island and the state. I wish we had a similar possibility for the Netherlands, Denmark and New Zealand, all of which have dual referents. Or Washington and Mexico, for that matter. — kwami (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I propose the MOS suggest using the spelling Hawaii when speaking of the state or archipelago, including the kingdom that spanned much of that archipelago

I'm worried that this becomes arbitrary, but I agree it's going to be easier. I've updated the spelling in the Oʻahu article, but won't request a name change for now. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I think if there isn't a name in the state board to base the spelling off then we need to go by WP:COMMONNAME. This might lead to disparities if it's, for example, Kingdom of Hawaiʻi and State of Hawaii, but I think that's fine as ultimately they're distinct historical entities. Even in the NZ cases you get situations where there's disparities when a place name is used as part of another name - for example, Kaikōura but Kaikoura Airport. It's a bit clunky but it's fine in the scheme of things. Turnagra (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

As a minor comment, if we want people to treat the kahakō as equally important as the ʻokina, I don't think the sentence "The ʻokina is a consonant and should not be understood as a diacritic." is necessary, since it seems to draw a distinction between consonants and diacritics. Justin Kunimune (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The biggest reason that feels necessary is a huge number of these discussions immediately focus on the ʻokina as a diacritic then point to Wikipedia policies on diacritics, which don't apply here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

If we have clear guidelines that necessitate the use of the ʻokina and the kahakō then that whole argument from them would be moot in my view. I reckon we get these sorted and then we can add that bit if we need it down the line. Turnagra (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Even the Board docs are titled as correcting diacritical usage, so this is a common error, and one that can cause problems. I don't think that clarifying that the okina is a letter rather than a diacritic would cause problems with the macron, but maybe we could reword that comment or mo ve it further down. — kwami (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

We probably want to not let this momentum peter out entirely, and get the MOS fixed up? @Turnagra @SMcCandlish @Kwamikagami Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah agreed, happy for this to move forward. What's the current wording being proposed with all the final changes made, again? Turnagra (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The version above seems mostly set, though I think there was a modification to include the spelling in sources comment. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Just so there's no doubt, it would be good to reiterate here what we think the final version is/should be, so people can comment on it if they still feel a need to do so, and we can all be sure what version we're presumably (at this point) approving.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Some follow-up comments: I propose the MOS suggest using the spelling Hawaii when speaking of the state or archipelago, including the kingdom that spanned much of that archipelago, and restricting Hawaiʻi to the Big Island. That's far too arbitrary. It is not WP's job to make up and enforce a false consistency that isn't reflected in the best practices in current reliable sources (that are actually reliable for the subject). Or, we could use Kingdom of Hawaiʻi for historical reasons, but if so we should spell that out here; and: {{This might lead to disparities if it's, for example, Kingdom of Hawaiʻi and State of Hawaii, but I think that's fine as ultimately they're distinct historical entities. Even in the NZ cases you get situations where there's disparities when a place name is used as part of another name - for example, Kaikōura but Kaikoura Airport. It's a bit clunky but it's fine in the scheme of things.}} – Agreed.

I don't think the sentence "The ʻokina is a consonant and should not be understood as a diacritic." is necessary, since it seems to draw a distinction between consonants and diacritics. But they are distinct, and the distinction can matter. a huge number of these discussions immediately focus on the ʻokina as a diacritic then point to Wikipedia policies on diacritics ... is correct. But ... which don't apply here and ... then that whole argument ... would be moot ... may not be. When a narrow guideline with low editorial input is in conflict with a broad one with a great deal of editorial input, the former tends to "lose", per WP:CONLEVEL. So, I don't think that clarifying that the okina is a letter rather than a diacritic would cause problems with the macron, but maybe we could reword that comment or move it further down. – Agreed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this belongs in the ortho section, not the naming section. I've suggested the dab the kahakō (macron), a vowel diacritic, and the ʻokina (glottal stop), a consonant letter. below. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, the okina template states, after some discussion, that it should be used in place of the character, so that the quote mark isn't used instead and so that bots don't replace them with the ASCII apostrophe - we should probably say the same here — kwami (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I didn't follow what you agreed with in your comments from today, so they may not be reflected below — kwami (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

{{lang|haw|HAWAIIAN TEXT HERE}}

I posted this on the Hawaii wikiproject, but figured it should go here for comment as well. This is set up to grab the article name, but it can be overwritten with a parameter, i.e. {{hawaiianname|Oʻahu}} would override "Oahu".

The subject of this article has a Hawaiian language name. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles: is the correct spelling in both English and Hawaiian. Hawaiian spellings are often written without an ʻokina or kahakō for convenience, but the Hawaiian orthography is in common use in Hawaii in the English language and in official sources. Place names should follow the official name from the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names. Please see MOS:HAWAII for more information.

{{tmbox
| style     = "background-color: #F8EABA; border: 1px solid #C0C090; margin: 4px 10%; width:80%;"
| image     = [[File:Flag_of_Hawaii.svg|left|40px]]
| textstyle = "text-align:left;"
| text      = '''The subject of this article has a [[Hawaiian language]] name. {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}}}: is the correct spelling in both English and Hawaiian.'''<br />
Hawaiian spellings are often written without an [[ʻokina]] or [[kahakō]] for convenience, but the Hawaiian orthography is in [[WP:COMMONNAME|common use]] in Hawaii in the English language and in official sources. Place names should follow the official name from the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names. Please see [[MOS:HAWAII]] for more information.
}}

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this.

IMO the name should be set in italics or quotation marks. No following colon. — kwami (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks great, though I'd agree with the suggested change. Turnagra (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

{{tmbox
| style     = "background-color: #F8EABA; border: 1px solid #C0C090; margin: 4px 10%; width:80%;"
| image     = [[File:Flag_of_Hawaii.svg|left|40px]]
| textstyle = "text-align:left;"
| text      = '''The subject of this article has a [[Hawaiian language]] name. "''{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}}}''" is the correct spelling in both English and Hawaiian.'''<br />
Hawaiian spellings are often written without an [[ʻokina]] or [[kahakō]] for convenience, but the Hawaiian orthography is in [[WP:COMMONNAME|common use]] in Hawaii in the English language and in official sources. Place names should follow the official name from the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names. Please see [[MOS:HAWAII]] for more information.
}}

Look good? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

It's now live at {{Hawaiianname}} (and in use at the Waiks article). Just to explain one thing, I left the ʻokina out of "use in Hawaii" because the official state name lacks it, and that seems to be the internally consistent thing to do with the proposed MOS changes. The one thing I could see being useful here is the same call not to use langx that we have in the MOS proposal. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

As shown at the latest discussion of a mass move attempt, this article section on names goes against Wikipedia Policy and MOS for common names. It needs to be updated before more failed attempts happen, and moves based on it need to be re-looked at as potentially against protocol. Wikipedia goes with the common English name, not local name; what the sources say in all English for all our English readers, not an Alabama or Hawaiian version. This has been re-affirmed at Wikipedia over and over again, especially in the latest attempt to move Hawaiian place names and places like Denali in Alaska. It would be best for those in the project to re-word the section rather than a formal RFC of all Wikipedians who have limited interaction with the state, but it will likely happen if not done soon in order to avoid future issues on this topic. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I still don't think it does. The MOS is written entirely in like with WP:COMMONNAME - if it were saying, for example, that we needed to use Puʻuloa instead of Pearl Harbour then I would completely agree. But it's not doing that. This is simply a guide for orthography of common name spelling to ensure it aligns with MOS:TIES, not proposing a completely different name. Hawaiʻi is still fundamentally same same common name as Hawaii, and no reasonable person is going to get confused between the two. Some people just don't like diacritics, which is their prerogative but unfortunately for them not a basis of making widespread changes. This is also not the place to take out your disappointment over the Denali result, as you seem to have done a few times in this space (though I would note that name usage in Alaska specifically came up a fair bit in that discussion, which actually seems to run counter to your point here). The wording of this policy was designed to align with similar wording elsewhere on wikipedia which has widespread approval and longstanding consensus in favour, this is not a new thing. Turnagra (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

There are people that don't like diacritics. I'm not fond of them myself, but that's neither here nor there. If the majority of English sources use the diacritics we use them here. It has nothing to do with how complicated it is, is is 100% what do the majority of English sources use. And Denali was chosen, good or bad, as the common term used in English, so that's where it's at. My complaint there was that it was not applied when it was originally moved to Denali from McKinley. That was shown to be 100% incorrect in retrospect and that two wrongs don't make a right... so it was left at Denali this go around until such time that McKinley is shown to be more common. This Hawaii article is dead wrong per policy and I will start an RFC to demand change by the entire community if it's not fixed by project members. When the entire wiki community looks at it they may see a lot of other things that need changing other than the naming discrepancy so I would hesitate to bring everyone in. Projects do need some free will, or at least I feel they do, so I always like for projects to take care of things first. But this is a blatant error that needs to be fixed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll wait until others show up to talk about the prospect of any potential edits, but "do what I want or else" isn't really a great way to be going about things, for the record. Turnagra (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

A lot of editors would simply have gone straight to an Rfc. I simply don't think it's needed and can be avoided. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Since no one seems willing to do the required fix to conform to Wikipedia policy as per recent discussions, I'll give it a shot so we can remove the factual dispute template. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I removed most of the "Sources" section which was a restatement of Wikipedia policy on Verifiability and Non-English sources (WP:NONENG), leaving only a little stub about use of Hawaiian-language sources which seems somewhat relevant (I'd be in favor of removing it too, but that seemed controversial enough to get consensus first). The "Sources" section has been around since 2014 but it was added by one editor and doesn't seem to have been the result of a discussion or consensus. Looking at the other WP:MOS regional topics, I did not see any other ones that gave a whole section quoting and restating policy, so it's not a "standard" part of a MOS page. And the specific things cited have not been particular problems in Hawaiʻi articles (at least no more than anywhere else on WP). Mahalo! -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)